Good evening.

Welcome to the uh October 9th meeting of the Walnut Creek Planning Commission.

And uh ask the secretary to call the role.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh Commissioner Moran.

Here.

Commissioner Cound.

Here.

Commissioner Strongman.

Commissioner Quok.

Here.

Commissioner Klopp.

Here.

Vice Chair Knighting.

And Chair Anderson.

Gang's all here.

We have Quorum.

Okay, thank you.

Next on the agenda is a consent calendar.

I understand we have a proposal to move one of the items.

Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission move item 4C to the consent calendar to join the proposed 2026 Commissioner calendar.

The item to be moved would be the uh childry new single family residents.

Is anyone here to speak on that matter?

Or sorry.

You're not going to speak on that matter.

Okay.

Um, and I would entertain a motion to move that to the consent calendar.

I uh move that we move item move that we move item 4B.

4C.

C, 4C to the consent calendar.

Second.

You call the role.

Uh Commissioner Klupp.

Yes.

Commissioner Strongman?

Yes.

Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Cound?

Yes.

Commissioner Quok.

Yes.

Uh Commissioner I'd see Vice Chair Knighting.

Yes.

Chair Anderson?

Yes.

Did I miss anybody?

I don't think so.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Right.

So we now have two items on the consent calendar.

And uh is there any I move to approve the consent calendar?

Any discussion on the motion or second.

I thought I moved for the case.

Second.

Okay.

Any discussion on that?

All right.

No, we call a role on the consent calendar.

I'm sorry, who made the motion?

Commissioner Klopp.

No, it was uh thank you.

Yes.

Commissioner Cound.

Yes.

Commissioner Strongman.

Yes.

Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Quok?

Yes.

Commissioner Klopp.

Yes.

Vice Chair Knighting?

Yes.

And Chair Anderson.

Yes.

Motion carries.

And we move to public communications.

There are two points at which you have the members of the public chance to speak.

One is on a particular matter that's on the agenda.

At this point, you have a chance to speak if you wish to speak on something which is not on the agenda that you want to bring to the attention of the planning commission.

Does anyone wish to have a public comment?

If not, then uh we will move on.

The public hearings.

Uh first is the zoning text amendment uh regarding the uh residential care facilities.

We have a staff report.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chairperson Anderson and members of the commission.

I'm Crystal DeCastro, Principal Planner in the Community Development Department.

The following item is a request for the planning commission to consider a resolution recommending the city council adopt an ordinance amending various sections of the zoning code related to residential care facilities along with minor code updates.

State law requires cities to address barriers to housing development for vulnerable populations, including persons with disabilities, the unhoused, extremely low income households, seniors, and the local critical workforce.

Consistent with this requirement, the city's housing element program requires the amendment to the zoning ordinance to increase the flexibility of residential care facilities or RCFs in all zones that allow for residential use and reduce their parking requirements.

So what is a residential care use?

So under the city zoning code, it defines two types of residential care use.

One is residential care home or RCH, and the other is residential care facility or RCF.

So RCH refers to small facilities that serve six or fewer individuals allowed by right in all residential zones per state law.

RCF refers to larger facilities that serve seven or more individuals allowed by right in some residential zones, and others may require a use permit in residential zones.

Both types provide 24-hour non-medical care and are licensed by the state.

State law requires that cities treat RCH as a residential use.

So RCH has six or less and RCH has seven or more.

It would update the base district regulations to allow RCFs in areas where RCH is allowed, and then align the parking requirements as follows.

In residential zones, apply the same parking standards to RCFs as RCH, and then reduce the employee parking in non-residential zones from one space per employee to 0.75 spaces per employee, while the maintaining the current 0.25 spaces per bed requirement.

Staff evaluated three alternatives and parking standards in three nearby cities: the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Pleasant Hill.

The analysis included four existing RCFs in Walnut Creek as seen here.

As highlighted in this table, alternative one provides a moderate reduction in total parking.

It helps avoid overparking in residential areas and aligns with regional practices and trends.

Lastly, it maintains adequate capacity for both staff and visitors.

Earlier today, the city received a comment letter requesting for an additional amendment, and that would be to use floor area ratio or FAR in residential zones.

FAR measures floor area, not building shape.

So development in residential areas are concerned with keeping the character of the neighborhood.

Therefore, development is not based is is on based on coverage, setbacks, and height, not FAR.

In not run non-residential zones, such as commercial zones or mixed use zones, FAR is based on the intensity of its use.

So typically buildings within mixed-use or commercial zones like downtown is more intense.

So they're taller buildings rather than the buildings that are in residential neighborhoods.

The amendment before you tonight would not limit the amount of beds within a facility.

Therefore, RCFs would be feasible in residential zones.

As amount of beds is controlled by the State Department of Social Services.

If the Commission would like to add FAR to this list of amendments in residential zones, staff would need more time to study the implications of this in the residential zoning districts.

Next is the minor code cleanup items.

Adding the definition for objective standards is one of the cleanup items, and that is just to be consistent with what the state allows and what is defined by the state.

Next is removing an outdated summary use table by removing this table.

It avoids redundancy.

And also we have the data parcel viewer now available online that the community can refer to.

And lastly, with each zoning district in the chapter, it lists what the uses are that are allowed.

One more thing is the ADU ordinance update.

The update is to align with state law as it clarifies provisions for occupancy, fire sprinklers, demolition permits, and noticing.

And this is already something the city already practices because it's a state law.

In conclusion, staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending council find the proposed amendments exempt from CEQA and adopt the ordinance.

Staff is available for any questions.

Um the uh the letter that we got regarding the uh using the FAR and residential zones.

They mentioned several um just proposing those precedence where uh they'd use FAR for it.

Um but as I understand, all of those were in commercial zones.

Yes, they were in PDs, so they weren't in residential zoning.

Okay.

They were office commercial.

And and having RCRS or CFs in uh um commercial zones uh evaluated one way and having them in residential zones evaluated a separate way, that all that complies with the state law.

That would comply with the state law.

Okay.

Yes.

What else?

Commissioner Count.

Um so in the letter that we received, there were two um sections that they suggested.

One was for um the section in residential districts, but the other was for in non-residential districts, asking to add the line that says the maximum density for residential care facility shall be governed by the maximum floor area ratio in the underlying zoning district.

From what you presented here, it sounds like that's already the case.

That's already the case because they're more intense uses, so they use FAR.

But we don't have that wording.

It it currently it's just a practice rather than uh my question is would we need to add the wording that the letter is suggesting in order to clarify that going forward or I believe that it's clear, but I would need to ask legal to the other.

I could come back back in judgment on it.

Okay.

So um for non-residential districts, and then let's go back to zone.

Um, let's go back to the general plan.

The general plan land use designations prescribes a range of FAR for non-residential land use designations and a range of densities for residential density for residential pro uh land uses.

Um in doing so the uh the zoning code picks up the same thing and and drills down a little bit.

But what it does I think the the different word here is maximum.

So it it's it it that would that would be a minor change.

I mean if you if if if the city wished to add the word maximum, it would give them uh by right to max out that density range listed in the general plan.

Let me add to that by saying that um the state also recently classified RCFs as um uh uh subject to utilizing density bonus.

So they are residents, so thank you.

I the I caught a line in there saying that RCF's bed count was regulated by I'm the state, I'm assuming it was a the department of of that.

Yes.

Is there do you know what that cap is?

Because I'm what I'm wondering is, you know, RC uh eight.

The the smaller version is six or less, but it's seven to we don't know, or yes.

They have their regulations for that, and I'm sure exactly what those regulations, but I think it would be related to safety and health requirements and fire code.

I know I know you can't tell me, but uh is it I wonder what that is.

The the fact that there's no there's no ceiling, and I understand you know that we're not talking we're gonna put 20 beds in there more than likely, but I wish I knew.

Yes.

So what I can say is for a residential zone, you're limited by the size of the building, the setbacks, and the height.

So whatever would be allowed by the state within those confines of that building is different from what would be allowed in say in a taller mixed use or a commercial office area where there you would have a lot more floor area ratio to allow for more beds.

And this ties into the what we were just discussing, right?

So let's say you know the cap the cap as to the state, you know, depending on how large the facility is would be X.

If we were to use the floor area ratio determination, that would actually probably give leeway to increase the number of beds, right?

It would give leeway to increase the number of beds and increase the building intensity, meaning the floor meaning the height, meaning how big of the lock coverage would be, would be even more, it would be greater.

Okay.

Thank you.

I would just add if I'm not mistaken my perception of the state uh organization involvements is around need and not around building side size.

So they're looking at need demographic need in your community.

How many beds are needed for X kind of use.

So uh on the parking question um it looks like the uh what's proposed for Walnut Creek is uh in the same range as the other cities you looked at um perhaps a little uh higher uh per employee but a little lower per bed um but would you consider that to be basically in the same range as the others yeah we were kind of in the middle okay between the other cities okay um for the six and under does that include employees or just the residents so let me just make sure here based in our zoning code is just six residents and the reason I ask is because um I have family that works in one of these and they sleep there but they're not technically a resident so that's why I was one because a a lot of you have to sleep there to take care of the patients.

So that's I'm I'm wondering but okay.

It's the actual patients yes.

Okay.

Any questions?

Um I will ask what they're open up to public hearing uh one member of the public here would you like to speak on this matter?

I would love to all right it's good entree in so it's exactly what I'm talking about.

Uh my name is Peter Gillis.

Good evening everybody I'm here on behalf of the owner of 2643 Larkey Lane here in Walnut Creek.

Um you all the letter you're re talking about it was sent by their legal counsel and they wanted me to reiterate so um I'm a land broker I work with a lot of developers and this asset class has become very popular because it's needed with uh the aging population and there is an economies of scale and what they worry about with this with a to get enough beds you know they're not looking to do a high rise um thousand bed kind of thing that doesn't fit with the with the model but they need enough because it's so expensive to build these days that they they need that.

So um let's see so in this letter what they really wanted to urge was the planning commission and the city council to slightly modify the language to clarify the maximum permitted density on residential care facilities to continue to be governed by a an FAR.

So in these residential districts um it can really limit you I don't know if you guys have ever had to visit a anyone in one of these facilities.

Yeah it's uh uh they but it's parking really dictates the amount of beds um that we find on these so that is really um you guys kind of covered it all and I appreciate it.

Uh they did give some uh precedent and as you said those were in a more of a commercial but this one is a residential zone it's kind of an odd lot it used to have a seven lot subdivision on it that was very peculiarly laid out and so this would really maximize the lot um doesn't affect uh the neighbors hardly at all and you know these type of facilities don't generate a tremendous amount of traffic so I think that's it.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any questions of the speaker?

Thank you.

I'll close the public hearing or close the public comment and uh bring it back to the the commission for comments or motions.

Mr.

Cow.

Um I guess I I'm still thinking about this particular scenario that the letter is referring to.

What a what it sounds like they're asking for is for an RCH to use the FAR, which we don't normally do.

So that would be a big change.

So that's that would require staff to go back and study the issue.

Am I understanding that?

Is that correct?

I mean that the the distinction is uh is where it is.

Right, oh right.

Not whether it's six or less.

So right.

So theirs is in a residential district, which we don't usually use FAR for.

I think the I the idea is that it's in a residential district where we don't use FAR for residences.

Um and it's supposed to fit in with the residential community that the same kinds of setbacks and you know heights and so forth limitations and constraints would would apply.

Um, whether that allows you more or less space, sounds like it probably allows you less.

Um but that's the intent is to keep uh consistent with the with a residential neighborhood.

You want people to the whole point is for it to feel residential when someone moves into one of those facilities.

Right.

Okay.

And if you make a comment that's also you want to keep the neighborhood to look the same to an extent, keep the character of the neighborhood.

Otherwise, we start having all sorts of things going on.

Um I have concerns if we were to use FAR because of the way that you apply FAR versus a density of density's objective standards has setbacks.

And so one thing that I was thinking about, Chip, when you said that state density bonus law.

So in theory, if someone would apply an FAR, they could use a waiver to wave out of a height limitation and right, and say that it physically precludes, and so it just it makes me nervous to not I I think if someone if some if the fact that states and state density bonus law does apply to our RCF or RCH, then in theory if someone wanted to increase the density instead of using an FAR, they could just apply a density bonus and get more density, but still keeping some objective standards like setbacks that is not gonna feel like a tower that's completely overbearing.

Because I think FAR coupled with state density might be a little bit I don't know, I'm just I'm trying I'm trying to think of how how it how would still emulate residential to fit in that area, and I can't think of a way that it would otherwise.

As far as the the mechanism for density bonus, uh that that is based on units, is it not?

Correct, and that's and that's gonna be a challenge.

Um but uh before before we discuss that, we should we the difference between uh um the that issue here is is what we're we're talking about density, but density is really not the issue.

It's how big is the box.

And and the box is either gonna be use an FAR standard or it's gonna use a building height set uh coverage and setback standard.

And that's that's what we're talking about.

Yeah.

If they build if you build one building and have thirty beds in it, it's one unit.

It's one, that's that's fair.

It's one unit.

Yeah.

Okay.

So density is really not at issue.

If there's a density bonus, we're gonna have to cross that bridge when we get there.

Okay.

I've only used FAR when designing commercial.

Yeah.

Um because it's been a box, a big box that's that's that we add the gross square feet.

That's the way I've always calculated the FAR.

Commissioner Klopp.

The one question I had was related to parking.

And I'm not unsure how that relates to using FAR, but he described his one of the barriers as the number of parking slots required, and we're proposing a reduction in a standard currently, so shouldn't that help him?

I I don't I don't quite understand how those two arguments go together, but they are linked together in one of his sentences.

So they change with actually allow for more parking?

Right.

Oh, I think unless especially in the commercial zones and non-residential zones.

Thank you.

All right, uh any further discussion or a motion.

I do have no one.

You so kind.

Just to clarify on the parking, the uh I'm reading this as in residential zones would stay the same where they're consistent with the underlying zoning district.

It's the non-residential zones that our chart applies to.

Oh, that's right.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Um I'd like to um my god, I'm having a brain part.

To uh uh approve the this is this is approval, not recommendation.

This is a recommendation of the city council.

Apologies.

I do move over to a recommendation for an ordinance of the city council, the city of Walnut Creek amending various sections of Title 10, Chapter 2 zoning of the Walnut Creek municipal code to implement housing element program H-3.h regarding residential care facilities to clarify accessory dwelling unit am I reading the right thing, regulations consistent with state law and to make minor code cleanup edits.

Thank you.

That was a big one.

Any further discussion on the motion?

Call the roll.

We'll do a roll call vote.

Uh Vice Chair Knighting.

Yes.

Commissioner Strongman.

Uh yes.

Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Cound.

Yes.

Commissioner Kwok?

Yes.

Commissioner Klopp.

Yes.

And Chair Anderson.

Yes.

That motion carries 7-0.

Very good.

Uh move on to our last item tonight, which is uh continuing uh retro junkie to a date certain.

I will not ask if there are anyone who wishes to speak on this.

Well, we will okay.

So we open the item.

Okay, open it.

I'm sorry, open the item, yes.

Open the public hearing and or the public comment and close that.

Um, and uh any discussion about the motion.

So I need a motion.

Yes, I move that we continue item uh four B retro chunky to the meeting of November 13th.

2025.

Yes.

Thank you.

I'll second that.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

And it's called roll.

Um Commissioner Klopp.

Yes.

Commissioner Strongman?

Yes.

Commissioner Moran.

Here, yes, sorry.

Commissioner Cow.

Yes.

Commissioner Kwop.

Yes.

And uh Vice Chair Knighting?

Yes.

Chair Anderson.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries that item is continued to November 13th.

Okay.

Um, five is Commission considerations for items that are not required to be public notice, but we're we think some discussion might be helpful.

I need Commissioner.

Considerations.

Not, we move on to number six, which is member and staff reports or announcements.

I have one.

Uh just a reminder that there is a mayored chair breakfast uh meeting on 10 24 at 7 30 a.m.

upstairs.

Okay.

Uh all are welcome.

Umice chair and I get to sit at the front table.

Others can sit elsewhere.

Unless you'd like to sit with us, that's fine too.

Um, if you haven't been to one of those, it it's uh it's interesting to hear about what everybody else is doing and uh what the city council is up to, how everything get a better sense of how things fit together and you get breakfast.

So it's a win-win.

Um, I also just had a brief comment if that's okay.

Um I just wanted to say thank you to the staff and the city council uh for moving forward uh this week with the visioning and strategy for the general plan update.

Um really seeking a format that will encourage input from a wide range of perspectives.

So thank you.

Um and I also wanted to say thank you to our community longtime champion of champions of the arts in Walnut Creek.

Um a number of us attended the on Broadway event this past weekend, and it just it just made me so proud to live in a city that values the arts, champions the arts, and finds ways to bring people together of all ages in such enriching ways.

So I just wanted to share that.

Um yeah, thanks.

I'd like to also thank our interim city attorney who handled all of our legal questions tonight without any hesitation.

A lot of work.

Yeah.

Thank you for being here.

All right, uh, if there's nothing more, uh we stand adjourned.

We had 30 minutes.